The ALABAMA REVIEW - the Pintlala Historical Association!

The
AL A B AM A
REVIEW
A Quarterly Journal of
Alabama History
VOL. 63
July 2010
NO. 3
Published by the
ALABAMA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
in cooperation with AUBURN UNIVERSITY
ALABAMA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
Founded 1947
Officers and Board of Directors for 2010–2011
Kathryn Braund, Auburn University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President
Steve Murray, Dept. of Archives and History . . . . . . . . . Vice President
Mark Wilson, Auburn University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secretary
Debbie Pendleton, Dept. of Archives and History . . . Membership Secretary
John Hardin, Dept. of Archives and History . . . . . . . . . . . Treasurer
Board of Directors: The Officers and David Alsobrook, Mobile; Ramona Beck, Fort
Payne; Emma Frank Bowers, Clanton; Tom Bryant, Alabama Humanities Foundation; Valerie Pope Burnes, University of West Alabama; Lonnie Burnett, University of Mobile; Gary Burton, Pintlala; Donna Cox, Tuscaloosa; Brad Creed,
Samford University; Harriet Amos Doss, University of Alabama at Birmingham;
Bertis English, Alabama State University; Wilson Fallin Jr., University of Montevallo; James E. Foshee, Huntsville; Kari Frederickson, University of Alabama;
John C. Hall, Tuscaloosa; Gordon Harvey, Jacksonville State University; Martha Houston, Montgomery; Marty Olliff, Troy University Dothan; David Robb,
Huntsville; Shirley Spears, Sylacauga; Gayle Thomas, Abbeville; J. Mills Thornton,
ret., University of Michigan; Dorothy Walker, Alabama Historical Commission;
Tom Walker, Montevallo; Jerry Windsor, Graceville, Fla.
The Alabama Review (ISSN 0002-4341) is published quarterly, in January, April,
July, and October, by the Alabama Historical Association. Annual membership dues are $15.00 for students, $35.00 for individuals, $45.00 for families,
and $50.00 for institutions. Add $20.00 per year for international postage.
Membership applications should be mailed to The Alabama Historical Association, P.O. Box 300100, Montgomery, AL 36130. Members receive The
Alabama Review and the Association’s biannual Newsletter. Additional information is available at the Association’s Web site, http://www.alabamahistory.
net, or through e-mailing alabamahistory@gmail.com.
Subscription agents, retailers, and article authors desiring information on
availability and discounts should contact the editorial office at History Department, 310 Thach Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849, at bamarev@auburn.
edu, or at (334) 844 - 6770. Single issues are $15.00 each; for orders of five
or more, issues are $10.00 each. Issues are available through the editorial office; make remittances payable to the Alabama Historical Association.
Periodicals postage paid at Montgomery, AL, and at additional mailing
offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Alabama Historical Association,
P.O. 300100, Montgomery, AL 36130.
THE
ALABAMA REVIEW
A Quarterly Journal of Alabama History
VOLUME 63
JULY 2010
NUMBER 3
PINTLALA’S COLD MURDER CASE: THE DEATH
OF THOMAS MEREDITH IN 1812
GARY BURTON
CELEBRATIONS AND CIVIC CONSCIOUSNESS: THE
ROLE OF SPECIAL OBSERVANCES IN ALABAMA’S
EDUCATIONAL MODERNIZATION, 1900–1915
EDITH M. ZIEGLER
163
192
BOOK REVIEWS
224
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TREASURER
STEVE MURRAY
238
AWARDS OF THE ALABAMA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
240
Published by the ALABAMA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
Copyright © 2010 by Alabama Historical Association
ISSN 0002-4341
Editorial Offices hosted by the Department of History, Auburn University
Editor: WILLIAM F. TRIMBLE
Associate Editor: CAREY E. CAUTHEN
Research Associate: T OMMY B ROWN
Editorial Board: JENNIFER E. BROOKS, 2010, Auburn University. JEFF FREDERICK,
2010, University of North Carolina at Pembroke. LAN LIPSCOMB, 2010, Troy University, Montgomery Campus. MARTIN OLLIFF, 2010, Troy University, Dothan Campus.
ANTHONY G. CAREY, 2011, Appalachian State University. JOHN D. FAIR, 2011, Georgia
College & State University. GORDON E. HARVEY, 2011, Jacksonville State University. JUDY
SHEPPARD, 2011, Auburn University. DAVID E. ALSOBROOK, 2012, Museum of Mobile. BERTIS
ENGLISH, 2012, Alabama State University. KARI FREDERICKSON, 2012, University of Alabama. GEORGE C. RABLE, 2012, University of Alabama.
BOOK REVIEWS
Arrington, There’s Hope for the World
by Catherine Conner
Beard-Moose, Public Indians, Private Cherokees
by Susan M. Abram
Dwyer and Alderman, Civil Rights Memorials and the
Geography of Memory
by Renee Romano
Finley, Delaying the Dream
by Charles S. Bullock III
Fitzgerald, Splendid Failure
by Steven E. Nash
Rosen, Terror in the Heart of Freedom
by Lisa Lindquist Dorr
Williams and Lazerow, Liberated Territory
by Hasan Kwame Jeffries
224
226
228
230
232
234
236
Pintlala’s Cold Murder Case:
The Death of Thomas Meredith
in 1812
GARY BURTON
B
PINCHONA CREEK in southwest
Montgomery County and very near the site of Sam Moniac’s tavern
on the Old Federal Road are the remains of Thomas Meredith. His
murder in late March 1812 by militant Creek Indians inflicted a
trauma on Meredith’s westward-traveling family, a trauma for which
they were unprepared. Exactly what happened to Meredith along the
banks of the Pinchona, a stream punctuated by cypress knees and
garrisoned by trees laden with Spanish moss, is cloistered in mystery.
What is clear is that the killing of Thomas Meredith quickly became
a high-profile case, claiming the attention and energy of federal officials. Accounts of the incident vary, and even the number of people
in Meredith’s party is uncertain. The Meredith murder became even
more significant because of two other incendiary acts of violence
that occurred soon after: Arthur (or William) Lott, a former Georgia
legislator, was killed in Macon County, and members of the Manley
and Crawley families were killed or captured on the Duck River in
Tennessee. This trio of incidents became flashpoints that eventually
ignited the Red Stick War in 1813.
URIED NOT FAR FROM THE BANKS OF
Gary Burton has been the pastor of the Pintlala Baptist Church since 1972. He currently
serves as president of the Pintlala Historical Association and Friends of the Alabama Department of Archives and History. Civic involvements include service with the Montgomery
Public Library Board of Directors, including five years as president, and with Montgomery’s Baptist Health Board. The author extends gratitude to his wife Jerrie for her tireless
clerical assistance, and to Bill Trimble and Carey Cauthen for their helpful editing of this
publication. Further gratitude is expressed for the inspiration of Sandra Bennett, a Meredith descendant living in Irving, Texas, and to Dr. Kathryn Braund for her scholarship and
enthusiasm for this period of history. Thanks are also extended to the research staffs of the
Alabama Department of Archives and History and the Special Collections and Archives,
James B. Duke Library, Furman University, South Carolina. This presidential address was
read at the annual meeting of the Alabama Historical Association held in Gadsden, April
17, 2010.
164
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
Today, nearly two hundred years after the Meredith murder, two
issues related to the event need resolution. First, clarification related to the location of the crime is called for, and second, and more
important, Sam Moniac’s contention that the killing was accidental
when an eyewitness contended otherwise needs to be examined.
On April 6, 1812, William Eustis, the Secretary of War, received a
report announcing that Thomas Meredith Sr. had been murdered by
militant Creeks. The official reporting of the murder came from Col.
Benjamin Hawkins, who had been appointed by President George
Washington in 1796 as General Superintendent of Indian Affairs and
who served in his post with prominence and distinction. Hawkins
had lived among the Creek Indians, was especially familiar with the
Creeks who lived in the Mississippi Territory, and was well traveled in
the area that became central and south Alabama. During the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, Hawkins received federal support for implementing a plan to “civilize” the Indians, particularly encouraging
their adoption of European agricultural methods.1
In his 1812 report, Hawkins described the sixty-two-year-old
Meredith as a “respectable old man.”2 Other details, however, are not
found in the official correspondence from Hawkins, who left much
unsaid about the man murdered on the banks of the Pinchona. What
he did write was:
On the 26th ult. Thomas Meredith, Sen. a respectable
old man, travelling with his family to the Mississippi
territory, was murdered on the post road, at Kittome,
a creek 150 miles from this. Sam Macnac [sic] a half
breed of large property, who keeps entertainment on
the road, at whose house Meredith is buried, calls it
an accident. Thomas Meredith, son of the deceased,
was an eye witness, says, “there was murder committed on the body of Thomas Meredith, Sen. at Kittome
1
H. Thomas Foster, ed., The Collected Works of Benjamin Hawkins, 1789–1810 (Tuscaloosa,
2003), 9–10; Florette Henri, The Southern Indians and Benjamin Hawkins, 1796 –1816 (Norman, Okla., 1986), 209, 239– 40.
2
Meredith’s birth year was most likely 1750.
JULY 2010
165
creek, by Maumouth and others, who appeared to be
in liquor; that is, Maumouth himself, but none of the
others. The company were all on the other side of
the creek, except my father and an old man. They
fell on him without interruption, and killed him
dead as he was trying to make his escape in a canoe,
and sorely wounded the other, with knives and sticks,
so much so, that I fear we shall have to bury him on
the way.” The Speaker of the nation and some of his
Executive council were with me, returning home, at
the time I received the communication, which I read
to them, and directed, on their return, to convene
their chiefs, and cause justice to be done without delay. Maumouth is an old chief, known to all of us.
Several travelers have passed and repassed since, and
I hear of no further interruption.3
On the fateful Thursday, March 26, 1812, Meredith and his family
were passing through Creek Nation territory, located in the district of
Alabama. Having safely traveled from the Fairfield District of South
Carolina, where they had lived for two decades, the large Meredith
family, like hundreds of others, was caught up in the euphoria of
a new life in the Mississippi Territory. The compelling lure of land
and the opportunity to start life anew held a powerful magnetism.
For most of the journey these families traversed the newly improved
Federal Road or post road. The one-time horse path now accommodated wheeled vehicles and was heavily used. Hawkins reported that
“between October 1811 and March of the next year, 233 vehicles and
3,716 people had passed his Indian agency on the Flint River, heading west.”4
3
American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States
. . . Indian Affairs (Washington, D.C., 1832), 1:809, also available online at http://memory.
loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsplink.html. Sam Moniac’s name has various spellings in documents of the era, including Manacs, Macnac, and Manack.
4
Henry deLeon Southerland and Jerry Elijah Brown, The Federal Road through Georgia, the
Creek Nation, and Alabama, 1806–1836 (Tuscaloosa, 1989), 39.
166
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
How many family members comprised the Meredith party is unclear. Meredith and his wife Abigail, and most, if not all, of their children and their spouses, along with slaves, made the trip. Eventually
the family settled in Amite County, Mississippi Territory, although a
few Merediths migrated on to Louisiana. Tragically, they would do so
without their patriarch.
One can only speculate about what provoked this confrontation between the militant Creeks and Meredith that culminated in his murder and left his unnamed traveling companion with life-threatening
injuries. Contributing to the provocation, most likely, was the Federal
Road itself. Traveling was arduous for those early migrants. Crossing
creeks and rivers was challenging. Primitive bridges and causeways
had been quickly and crudely constructed. According to historians of
the road, “timbers would be placed across the road and dirt packed
between these logs to complete the causeways and keep horses from
bogging to their bellies in the swamps.”5 Improvements to the Federal
Road allowed for easier travel and thus enabled the encroachment of
white settlers, who threatened the territory, traditions, and heritage
of the Indians. Every inch of progress in road construction was salt in
the wounds of those who despised such sweeping changes.
Compounding the agitation over the road was Sam Moniac, who
was at that time one of the wealthiest mixed-blood Creeks in the area.
He owned vast amounts of property and cattle and was the proprietor
of a “house of entertainment” (a tavern or inn) on the Federal Road.
Moniac had been a supporter of the federal government. In 1790 he
accompanied Creek chief Alexander McGillivray, along with twentytwo other warriors and chiefs, to New York and signed a controversial
treaty selling land that belonged to all of the Creeks.6 Moniac’s dealings with the federal government, along with the financial success his
dealings brought, caused much resentment among the traditionalist Creeks, who distrusted the wealthy mixed-blood Indian because
of his alliance with the intrusive whites. They opposed the changes
to their culture introduced by Creeks seeking accommodation with
5
Ibid., 23.
American State Papers . . . Indian Affairs, 1:809; Henri, Southern Indians and Benjamin Hawkins,
12.
6
167
JULY 2010
Map showing
the location of
Moniac’s store
or tavern on
the Federal
Road and
Pinchona
Creek. U.S.
Land Office,
Cahaba Land
District, Plat
Book Two,
1821–1827, 85.
Map courtesy
of the Alabama
Department
of Archives
and History,
Montgomery.
168
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
Locations of Catoma, Pintlala, and Pinchona
creeks. Map courtesy of Alabama Maps, the
Cartographic Research Laboratory, University of
Alabama, http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/index.html.
JULY 2010
169
white settlers and the federal government. On March 26, 1812, their
culture and that of the white settlers clashed at Pinchona Creek, resulting in the killing of Thomas Meredith.7
That day, most members of Meredith’s party crossed to the west
side of Pinchona Creek near present- day Pintlala. Lagging behind
the larger party, having not yet crossed the Pinchona, were Meredith,
his young son, and another man. These three met a group led by an
old Creek chief, Maumouth, whom Hawkins reported “appeared to
be in liquor.” The existing antagonism between the whites and the
militant Creeks apparently provoked the intoxicated chief to commit the crime, but there may be more to this story. If all but three in
the Meredith party had crossed the creek earlier with all their gear
and possessions, leaving the three men to cross in a canoe, then it
may have been that Maumouth and his followers saw an opportune
moment for harassment and taunting. Because much rain had fallen
in the late winter and spring of 1812, perhaps Maumouth saw an opportunity to extort a high price from the Meredith clan by offering
to assist them in the crossing of the Pinchona. While it is speculative,
the possibility of resistance by the Merediths may have ignited the
fuse of the Creeks’ anger. After all, the Meredith family had accumulated considerable experience in crossing creeks since leaving South
Carolina, and had negotiated the Catoma and Pintlala creeks before
arriving at the Pinchona.
The experience of Margaret Ervin Austill the previous year is
instructive and enlightening when examining the Meredith murder. In 1811, as a young child, Austill traveled with her family from
Washington County, Georgia, toward Louisiana. She recorded her
memories of that trip, noting:
Then the rain set in, not a day without rain until we
crossed the Alabama; there were no roads, and mud
and water large creeks to cross with slender bridges
made by the Indians, which they demanded toll at a
7
Claudio Saunt, A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733–1816 (New York, 1999), 260.
170
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
high price for every soul that crossed a bridge, and
often rather than pay, the men would make their negroes cut trees and make a bridge, which gave the
Indians great anger, and they would threaten us with
death.8
The attack on Meredith came just one year after Austill’s experience,
and a disagreement over paying tolls could have been a factor leading to the incident. Yet, regardless of the motivation, the end result is
clear. Meredith’s young son, Thomas Meredith Jr., who witnessed the
death of his father, stated that the perpetrator had killed his father,
indeed, had “killed him dead.”
In addition to uncertainty with regard to motive, contradictory
information about the exact location of the murder has added to
the confusion about this incident. Some of that confusion originated
from the official report submitted by Benjamin Hawkins. Although
Hawkins had resided in the Creek towns of Tuckabatchee (now present-day Tallassee) and Coweta (near present-day Phenix City), he
had moved the Creek Agency to the Flint River near what is now
Roberta, Georgia.
Hawkins reported the incident even though he was far removed
from the scene of the Meredith murder, a fact he acknowledged in
his report. Perhaps because of this distance, he misplaced the scene
of the crime to the post road at Kittome Creek.9 Kittome was a variant spelling for Catoma. Sam Moniac, however, did not operate his
place of entertainment on the Catoma. His business was located
in present- day Pintlala, on the Federal Road near where it crosses
Pinchona Creek. Many variant spellings and pronunciations exist for both creeks. For example, Catoma Creek was also known as
Auke Thome, Catama, Catatma, and Kit-to-me. Alternative names for
Pinchona Creek include Pinchoma, Pinchon, Pinchonee, Pinchorna,
Pinchunc, and Pinchony.
8
Margaret Ervin Austill, “Life of Margaret Ervin Austill,” Alabama Historical Quarterly 6
(Spring 1944): 93.
9
American State Papers . . . Indian Affairs, 1:809.
JULY 2010
171
The problem with inconsistent spelling and variant names frustrated H. Thomas Foster when he assembled The Collected Works of
Benjamin Hawkins. Foster chose to rely strictly on the phonetic spelling provided by Hawkins, conceding “There are multiple spellings
for almost every proper name. . . . I prefer to leave the interpretation
of place-name identification to the reader.” In his records, Hawkins
provided a list of creeks contingent to the post road in soon-to-be
Alabama Territory; the list highlights the problem of variations in spelling. For example, the three major creeks in southwest Montgomery
County are listed as Kit-to-me, Pilth-lau-le, and Pinchunc.10 Given the
heightened tension of the times and the prevalence of fear and paranoia among travelers on the Federal Road, the distortion of facts is
easily understood. Without standardized spelling and pronunciation,
misinformation would have easily been transmitted from the vicinity
of Pinchona Creek, where the murder occurred, to the Creek Agency
on the Flint River in Georgia, where Hawkins resided.
Confusion over the location of the murder was perpetuated by
Luke Ward Conerly in his study of Pike County, Mississippi, the area
in which some of Meredith’s descendants eventually settled. Without
the benefit of government documents, Conerly misplaced the site
of the murder on the Georgia border. He wrote: “John Hart married Martha Meredith from Fairfield District, South Carolina. Her
father was killed while moving to Mississippi by an Indian at the
Chattahoochie River, who threw a chunk at another man, striking
him and killing him, which resulted in the Indian killing.”11 The erroneous identification of the crime scene that began with the official
report made by Hawkins was also perpetuated by Albert James Pickett
in his 1851 History of Alabama, and Gen. Thomas S. Woodward in his
1859 Reminiscences of the Creek, or Muscogee Indians.12
10
Foster, Collected Works of Benjamin Hawkins, xi, 85s.
Luke Ward Conerly, Pike County, Mississippi, 1798–1876: Pioneer Families and Confederate
Soldiers: Reconstruction and Redemption (1909; repr., Madison, Ga., 2008), 95.
12
Albert James Pickett, The History of Alabama, and Incidentally of Georgia and Mississippi, from
the Earliest Period (1851; repr., Sheffield, Al., 1896), 516, 518; Thomas Simpson Woodward,
Woodward’s Reminiscences of the Creek, or Muscogee Indians, Contained in Letters to Friends in
Georgia and Alabama (Montgomery, 1859).
11
172
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
These errors call for clarification. The points of crossing of the
Federal Road by Catoma Creek and the point of the crossing of the
Federal Road at Pinchona Creek are about ten miles apart, and the
store or tavern operated by Sam Moniac was only a few yards from
the Pinchona. Other sources about the incident clearly state that the
murder occurred near Moniac’s place of business: Henry Southerland
and Jerry Brown note, “southwest of Colonel Wood’s the next stop
was Sam Manack’s house, on Pinchony Creek”; Benjamin W. Griffith
writes, “the incident occurred near Sam Moniac’s inn, which he kept
for the accommodation of travelers on the post road, and Meredith
was buried on the inn grounds”; and Gregory A. Waselkov asserts,
“Thomas Meredith was murdered near Sam Moniac’s stand in late
March.” Waselkov also provides cartographical evidence that locates
Moniac’s Inn near the Pinchona.13
We learn much about Thomas Meredith from his last will and
testament. After Meredith’s death his family moved on to settle in
the Mississippi Territory, but the last will and testament of Thomas
Meredith Sr., dated September 15, 1808, was taken back to Fairfield
County, South Carolina, and probated in Winnsboro on September
28, 1812. The will stipulated the payment of his debts and specified
his slaves by name when designating the children who should acquire
them. His bequests of real estate, livestock, feather beds, and furniture may have been typical of plantation owners of his day. An insight
into Meredith’s occupation is provided in the will as he noted that
his three sons should have “my blacksmith tools that each one may
do their work.”14
The will provides a snapshot of the kind of life the Merediths had
in South Carolina. They owned a modest estate with a plantation
house complete with furniture; stock comprised of horses, a mare,
cows, hogs, and calves; and cash in shillings and dollars. In his will,
13
Southerland and Brown, Federal Road through Georgia, 94; Benjamin W. Griffith, McIntosh
and Weatherford, Creek Indian Leaders (Tuscaloosa, 1988), 80; Gregory A. Waselkov, A Conquering Spirit: Fort Mims and the Redstick War of 1813–1814 (Tuscaloosa, 2006), 88, 209.
14
Meredith, Thomas of Fairfield District, Fairfield County Will Typescript (MSS Will: Fairfield District Estate Record Book D, vol. 6, 159; Estate Packet: file 25, PKG. 355), South
Carolina Department of Archives and History (hereafter cited as Meredith Will, S.C.). The
will may also be viewed online at http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/onlinearchives.
JULY 2010
173
Meredith expressed his hope that his three sons (James, Thomas,
and John) would direct the operation of the plantation, while parceling out the “things of this world” to his wife, sons, and daughters. The
property distribution included five slaves: Jack, Isaac, Jacob, Jinney,
and Marcus (affectionately referred to as “Old Marcus”). Intentions
were expressed to keep the slaves together as long as circumstances
permitted such an allowance.15
Land grants provide further insight into the life of Meredith and
his family. The family’s collective decision to pull up roots and transplant themselves to the territorial environment of the Old Southwest
surely had been a difficult one. Meredith sacrificed a good deal. In
leaving South Carolina, he left behind at least 300 acres on Horse
Branch in Camden District (now Fairfield County). In addition, he
turned his back on 365 acres on the waters of Dutchman’s Creek, also
in Camden. The magnetism of a new life in the Mississippi Territory
was strong enough to compel him and his family to forfeit the land
and make the difficult journey that would cost him his life.16
Identifying the source of these land grants provides further information about Meredith. In all likelihood the land grants were a
reward for his service in the Revolutionary War. On July 10, 1784,
Meredith presented a claim for payment to Thomas Baker, justice
of the peace. The claim was certified on the same day by General
Thomas Sumter, under whom Meredith had served as a foot soldier
for almost four months of militia duty in 1781–1782 in Orangeburg,
South Carolina. Additionally, Meredith served thirty-one days as a
lieutenant under Col. William Harden at the Battle of Four Holes
(April 7 and 15, 1781).17
In addition to the will and land grants, Fairfield County court records also give insight into Meredith’s life and involvements. The U.S.
15
Ibid.
Plats for land grants, April 10, 1786, series S213190, vol. 0018, page 00277, and January
31, 1787, series S213190, vol. 0018, page 00163, South Carolina Department of Archives
and History.
17
At Four Holes, seventy mounted men led by Maj. George Cooper stormed the loyalist post, taking twenty-six men captive. The British commander lost three men and was
wounded himself. Americans sustained the loss of one man, and two were wounded. Annie
Walker Burns, Abstract of Pensions of South Carolina Soldiers of the Revolutionary War, War of
1812, and Indian Wars (Washington, D.C., 1960).
16
174
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
Constitution was yet to be adopted when the minutes of the court
in Fairfield County, South Carolina, introduced the name Thomas
Meredith. The county court began functioning in 1785, and the next
year Meredith appeared and continued to appear, indicating that he
was in the center of much litigious activity.18
On January 25, 1786, Meredith was the plaintiff in a lawsuit in
which he brought charges of slander against William Graves, James
Graves, and Hugh Means. The thorny and complicated matter also
included a charge against Meredith by Isaac Love. Unfortunately, no
record exists concerning the nature of the charges. Resolution to
the charges and countercharges did not occur until May when, over
a four-day period, the court issued its ruling regarding each person
involved.19
On May 9, petit jurors were seated with John McKinney as foreman. In the case Meredith vs. William Graves, the jury found in favor
of Graves. The next day James Graves was dismissed from Meredith’s
suit, and Meredith was compelled to pay the court costs. The third
day brought an interesting approach on the part of Meredith and
his attorney. When the court was asked to rule on the matter of slander by Hugh Means (mistakenly spelled Minor in the court record),
Meredith challenged McKinney’s role as foreman. For whatever reason, McKinney was replaced by Richard Gladney, and the jury was
impaneled. This time the jury ruled in Meredith’s favor and awarded
him one pound sterling. The defense attorney quickly sought an arrest of judgment, which was granted. The court then required that
both the defense and prosecuting attorneys resume their arguments
the next day.20
If there was drama to any degree in the back-and-forth litigation, it
was not present the next day when the court referred the case to mediators John King and Ralph Jones. The court determined that the
judgment of these two mediators was to be final, and their decision
18
Brent Holcomb, Fairfield County, South Carolina, Minutes of the County Court, 1785–1799
(Easley, S.C., 1981), 10–21, 65, 82–89, 92–94.
19
Ibid., 11.
20
Ibid., 17, 18, 21.
JULY 2010
175
must have been agreeable to Meredith, for two of his children would
soon marry Jones’s children.21
Subsequent years found Meredith performing his civic duty as a
juror for the Fairfield County Court. The tenor of the times can be
seen in two judgments rendered by the juries on which Meredith
served. On June 14, 1793, William Hollis and others were brought
to trial, having been indicted for hog stealing. Those indicted other
than Hollis were exonerated, but Hollis was found guilty and ordered
to pay fifteen pounds by the next Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. If not paid,
he would receive “25 lashes on his bare back at the public whipping
post.” The next day, Meredith participated in rendering a verdict
against John McBride, who had been indicted for larceny. He was
found guilty and given jail time until July 8, at which time he was to
receive “ten lashes on his bare back” and was expected to pay the
entire costs of the sum stolen.22
On a side note, in all the times Meredith appeared as plaintiff, defendant, or juror, he was in a courtroom presided over by members of
the Winn family, whose most prominent member was Richard Winn.
Fitz McMaster, in his History of Fairfield County, noted General Winn’s
valor in battle. While commanding a regiment of militia during the
Revolutionary War, the firing became intense, and Winn turned to
General John Davis, exclaiming, “Is not that glorious?” For Winn,
the glory of the battlefield was later exchanged for life of public service, and the village of Winnsboro, named for his family, became the
county seat.23
While court records from South Carolina provide some information about Meredith, early nineteenth- century Baptist documents offer even more clues. Minutes from the Charleston Baptist Association
reveal that five months before Meredith was killed he attended their
meeting, which was held in Columbia. When representatives from
twenty-seven churches convened on Saturday, November 2, 1811,
21
Ibid., 23.
Ibid., 84, 85, 93.
23
Fitz Hugh McMaster, History of Fairfield County, South Carolina, from “Before the White Man
Came” to 1942 (Columbia, S.C., 1946), 200.
22
176
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
Meredith was present as a messenger from the Wateree Creek Baptist
Church, along with fellow messenger James Hart. The church’s pastor, the Rev. Ralph Jones, was absent from the meeting, most likely
because of poor health.24
The Wateree Creek Church typified many of that area and era.
While the church had existed for many years—the first meeting
house was built in 1770—it had relocated from its original site to a
site about five and a half miles south of Winnsboro. The church was
identified as a branch of the Congaree Church until 1803, when it
was accepted as a member of the Charleston Baptist Association with
the name Wateree Creek Baptist Church. This request for membership was made by Jones as early as 1799, and because Jones had spent
much of his life as pastor of the church, many referred to the church
as the Ralph Jones Meeting House. According to tabular records, the
church had an average of between fifty and sixty members during
the first decade of the 1800s. It often contributed financially to the
Baptist missionary fund and, less often, to the association’s education
fund.25
The association records indicate that Thomas Meredith represented the Wateree Creek Church for first time as a messenger in 1803,
and he attended the meeting every year from 1807 to 1811, with the
exception of 1808. The summary record of churches consistently indicates that Meredith was a layperson in the Wateree Creek Church.
He is never listed as a minister, and ministers were specifically designated in the associational records.
Each year during the annual gathering of church representatives
Meredith found himself in the company of notable Baptist leaders, including the Rev. Dr. Richard Furman, pastor of First Baptist Church,
Charleston, and founder of Furman University. Furman served as
the association’s moderator for many years. Other notable Baptists
who made significant contributions and with whom Meredith rubbed
shoulders were Dr. Jonathan Maxey, who had served as the second
president of Brown University and who would be tapped to serve as
24
Minutes of the Charleston Baptist Association, November 5, 1803, item 6, microform
(hereafter cited as CBA minutes).
25
Ibid.
JULY 2010
177
president of the University of South Carolina, William B. Johnson,
pastor of the Beaufort Church who served for twenty-seven years as
president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and who in 1845
was elected as the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention,
and Jesse Mercer, who was a prominent Baptist minister and founder
of Mercer University.26
Meredith joined these and other Baptists in conducting business typical of early associational life: receiving and reading letters
from corresponding associations, drafting circular letters, admitting new churches, hearing sermons, alerting churches to religious
hucksters, and pronouncing moral judgments on social functions.
Meredith surely heard Furman inform constituents about mission efforts among the Catawba Indians, including building a school. This
work was led by the Rev. John Rooker. Furman shared with the messengers that funding for the school and mission work was tenuous,
but he told them that he had approached the state’s governor, Jared
Irwin, who encouraged the association to ask for the state’s financial
assistance. Apparently progress was made at the school, for Rooker
provided optimistic reports, including his 1810 report in which he
produced “satisfactory specimens of pupils’ writing.”27
The 1811 meeting of the Charleston Baptist Association, the last
Meredith attended, launched a study to assess the practicality of
establishing a seminary, condemned the social practice of dancing
schools and balls, and proclaimed the second Wednesday of March
as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer among churches.28 By
mid-March of that year Meredith and his family would be well on
their way, traveling the Federal Road into the heart of the Mississippi
Territory, and by late March Meredith would be dead, murdered near
Pinchona Creek.
Meredith’s murder appears to be an open and shut case. There was
a perpetrator, a victim, and an eyewitness. Those responsible for the
crime were apprehended and executed. There was official documen26
CBA minutes, October 31, 1807, item 4; November 5, 1808, item 4; November 4, 1809,
items 3, 6; November 3, 1810, items 3, 4.
27
CBA minutes, November 3, 1810, item 11.
28
CBA minutes, November 2, 1811, items 9, 15, 19.
178
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
tation that brought closure to the crime. Yet, on an unofficial level,
one unresolved matter remains.
In his correspondence to Secretary of War Eustis, Benjamin
Hawkins reported that Sam Moniac called the killing an accident.
Moniac’s assertion was made in spite of the fact that Meredith’s nineyear-old son gave an eyewitness account of the murder of his father
by the Creek Indians.
The question then is why Moniac would declare the killing of
Meredith to be accidental?29 His rationale may have reflected a confluence of motives. First, on a practical and elemental level, Moniac
knew that news of a murder near his tavern could possibly lead to
rampant hysteria and adversely affect his business. Talk of the murder of a traveler in such close proximity to his place of “entertainment,” where travelers found lodging, food, refreshment for horses,
and other supplies, could potentially close his business down.
Second, Moniac’s motives for asserting the killing was accidental
may have been influenced by his own personal struggle with alcoholism. Ten years after the Meredith killing, in the aftermath of the
Red Stick War and the defeat of the British, Moniac’s alcoholism had
accelerated to the point that it destroyed his life and left him destitute. While the loss of some of his property and possessions must
be attributed to his loyalty to the federal government, which made
him hugely unpopular in some Indian circles, Moniac’s alcoholic behavior resulted in the loss of his remaining property. With impaired
judgment, Moniac participated in a series of bad business deals until
he was left penniless. Evidence of Moniac’s behavior is documented
in a letter from his relative, David Tate, to David Moniac, Sam’s son
who was serving as the first American Indian cadet at West Point.30
29
Kathryn Braund postulates that “accident” was a euphemistic expression used by the
Creeks. When Creek leaders said an accident or misfortune happened on the path, it
meant that the incident was the action of an individual, not a premeditated act of war. This
use of the words appears in other incidents involving Creeks. In 1767, Emistisiguo referred
to the murder of a white man as an “unlucky accident.” In 1766, the Oakchoy King used
it in the same way: “as to accidents happening to white people in Regard to their Goods
and other Mishaps.” John T. Juricek, ed., Early American Indian Documents: Treaties and Laws,
1607–1789, Volume 12: Georgia and Florida Treaties, 1763–1766 (Bethesda, Md., 2002), 27,
293.
30
David Tate to David Moniac, SPR26, Alabama Department of Archives and History, Montgomery (hereafter cited as ADAH).
JULY 2010
179
Emphasizing the urgency of the situation, Tate advised David Moniac
to return home and salvage what was left of his father’s possessions.
Sam Moniac conceivably could have been involved in a personal
struggle with alcohol, at least in the nascent stages, at the time of
Meredith’s death, and his alcoholism could have led him to be sympathetic to the behavior of Maumouth who was “in liquor” at the time
of the incident.
Third, that Moniac’s establishment was on the Federal Road near
Pinchona Creek opens up the door to some interesting speculation.
Perhaps Moniac felt some degree of responsibility for Meredith’s
death because Maumouth and his party had acquired their liquor
from his tavern.
Finally, internal tensions within the Creek nation were already high
at the time Meredith’s death occurred. As a prominent mixed-blood
Creek, Moniac knew that hostilities were rising against those who had
expressed allegiance to the United States. Because of Moniac’s support of the federal government and because of his full acculturation
to the lifestyle and traits of the whites, militant Creeks viewed him as
the epitome of everything that threatened their traditions and heritage. Harassment and agitation to resist any form of white influence
was something to which Moniac was no stranger. He had every reason
to suggest that the Meredith atrocity was accidental because he knew
that an investigation of the incident, followed by friendly Creeks pursuing, apprehending, and executing other Creeks, would deepen the
internal divisions and put him at risk. Ultimately, the labeling of the
killing as a murder could result in the loss of everything Moniac had
accumulated and could lead to the decrease in his standing within
the Creek nation itself. Of course, Moniac’s fears would eventually
become reality.
Seventeen months after the murder, on August 2, 1813, a deposition was sworn by Moniac before Harry Toulmin. In summarizing
the events of March 1812, Moniac stated, “being afraid of the consequences of a murder having been committed on the mail route, I
had left my home on the road, and had gone down to my plantation
on the river.”31
31
Sam Manac deposition sworn before Harry Toulmin, August 2, 1813, SPR26, ADAH, also
available online at http://archives.state.al.us/teacher/creekwar/lesson1/doc6.html.
180
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
The experience of the Meredith party was not unique. The Rev.
Lorenzo Dow and his wife Peggy shared the experience of traveling
the Federal Road when tension and fear were almost palpable. Dow
was from Connecticut and was probably the first Protestant minister to travel into the Mississippi Territory for religious purposes.
Along with his wife, Dow had been to St. Stephens (in present- day
Washington County) and they then traveled farther north on the
Federal Road, stopping along the way at Fort Mims. This fort, which
deeply impressed the Dows, was destroyed during the 1813 Red Stick
War, thus helping us to date the travel of this couple in the years just
before 1813.
The Dows continued their journey into what became central
Alabama and entered Creek territory. Their encounters along the
Federal Road and their brief stop at Moniac’s tavern in present-day
Pintlala illustrate the foreboding conditions of traveling on the recently cleared road. Peggy Dow wrote of their experiences:
At last we came in sight of a camp, which would have
made my heart glad, but I feared lest it was Indians;
yet to my great satisfaction, when we came to it we
found an old man and boy, with what little they possessed, going to the country that we had left behind,
and had encamped in this place, and with their blankets had made a comfortable tent, and had a good
fire. This was very refreshing to us, as we were much
fatigued. We made some coffee, and dried our clothes
a little, by this time it was day light, we then started
on our way again. I thought my situation had been as
trying as almost could be, but I found that there were
others who were worse off than myself.
We came across a family who were moving to the
Mississippi, they had a number of small children;
and although they had something to cover them like
a tent, yet they suffered considerably from the rain
JULY 2010
181
the night before; and to add to that, the woman told
me they had left an aged father at a man’s house by
the name of Manack, one or two days before, that
she expected he was dead perhaps by that time. They
were as black almost as the natives, and the woman
seemed very much disturbed at their situation. I felt
to pity her—I thought her burthen was really heavier
than mine. We kept on, and about the middle of the
day we got to the house where the poor man had
been left with his wife, son and daughter. A few hours
before we got there, he had closed his eyes in death;
they had laid him out, and expected to bury him that
evening; but they could not get any thing to make a
coffin of, only split stuff to make a kind of a box, and
so put him in the ground!32
Peggy Dow’s records on this incident were first printed in 1814,
and her experiences obviously took place before the outbreak of the
Red Stick War. The Dows certainly could have been in Moniac’s tavern shortly after Meredith’s murder, and her description of events
involving a death at Moniac’s seems to have occurred about the time
of the Meredith incident. Is it possible that she was referring to the
unnamed person who was injured when Meredith was killed?
The Dows, like most families that journeyed westward, often traveled with other family groups, and like most families during this period, fears about personal safety were part of that journey. For the
entrepreneur Sam Moniac, reducing fears and conveying a sense of
safety would have been in his best interest, for he had a business to
protect. Thus, the hasty burial at Moniac’s tavern may have been the
result of his desire to dispose of the problem quickly and not simply
because there was no wood available for a coffin. While that is only
speculation, what we do know from Peggy Dow’s account is that there
were at least two burials at Moniac’s “house of entertainment.”
32
Lorenzo Dow and Peggy Dow, History of Cosmopolite: Or the Writings of Rev. Lorenzo Dow . . .
to which is Added, the “Journey of Life” by Peggy Dow (1814; repr., Wheeling, Va., 1848), 651.
182
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
The other known fact is that over a span of a few weeks two other
murderous incidents provided enough combustible material to ignite momentous tensions and fears in the region. Other dangerous
confrontations occurred between white travelers or settlers and militant Indians, but none of these confrontations rose to the same level
of notoriety as did the massacre of the Manley family and the murder
of Arthur Lott. News of these two other incidents merged with the
story of Thomas Meredith’s murder on Pinchona Creek, and together these stories swept like a rapidly spreading prairie fire, resulting in
increased insecurity and paranoia among those who were migrating
into the Southwest and those who had already homesteaded.
The Manley massacre took place about six weeks after the murder of Meredith. In mid-May 1812 on the Duck River in western
Tennessee, five Indians invaded the home of Humphreys County resident Jesse Manley. The Indians murdered and scalped seven people,
five of whom were children, and took Martha Crawley captive.
As if the Duck River crimes were not horrible enough, newspaper accounts reported the event with embellishment and sensationalism. The public was already smoldering with anger when the
Tennessee Herald reported graphic details of the incident, calling it
“the unequalled scene of hellish barbarity,” and thus inflaming and
enraging even the calmest of souls. According to the newspaper’s account, Jesse Manley and John Crawley were away from home when
the Indians saw one of the Manley children outside the house. The
Indians approached the house, grabbed the child, “whom they tore
to pieces with their dogs and scalped.” The account continued:
With savage fury they now forced the door, and
commenced a scene of still greater barbarity. They
snatched Mrs. Manley’s child, only eight days old,
from her mother, scalped it and threw it into the
fire place, yelling at a horrid rate. An indiscriminate
butchery of the children now took place before their
mothers; five children were scalped and murdered,
they keeping Mrs. Manly as the last victim of their
cruelty. After shooting her, they scalped her, and
JULY 2010
183
committed unheard of cruelties on her body. They
then left the house, taking Mrs. Crawley along as prisoner.33
Tennessee Governor Willie Blount, in a June 25 letter to Secretary
of War Eustis, attempted to bring clarity to Mrs. Crawley’s status.
Blount had learned through an informant “that she has been severely
whipped, exhibited naked in circles of warriors, who danced around
her; and that at present she is at Tuckabatchee [Alabama], beating
meal for the family to whom she belongs.” Sometime in late June,
Crawley escaped her captors, and in a subsequent deposition, she
did not mention being severely whipped, stripped of her clothes, or
made the object of dancing. She did indicate that she was tied to a
tree on the first night of captivity and that, at one point, “she was ordered by one of them to stir a pot of hominy that was then on [the]
fire.”34
During this period politicians and military leaders, typified by
Andrew Jackson, skillfully used incendiary rhetoric to advance their
ambitions. Jackson was more than eager to invade the Creek Nation,
as indicated in his letter to Governor Blount:
the sooner the[y] can be attacked, the less will be
their resistance, and the fewer will be the nations
or tribes that we will have to war with. It is therefore
necessary for the protection of the frontier that we
march into the Creek nation, demand the perpetrators, at the Point of the Bayonet, if refused, that we
make reprisals, and lay their Towns in ashes. . . . I only
want your orders, the fire of the militia is up, they burn
for revenge, and now is the time to give the Creeks
the fatal blow, before the[y] expect it.35
33
The date of the Tennessee Herald report is unknown. It was picked up by other publications across the country, including The Lady’s Miscellany, or The Weekly Visitor: For the Use and
Amusement of Both Sexes 15 (June 20, 1812): 140– 41.
34
American State Papers . . . Indian Affairs, 1:814.
35
John Spencer Bassett and David Maydole Matteson, Correspondence of Andrew Jackson
(Washington, D.C., 1926–1933), 1:226.
184
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
The final of the three notorious incidents in 1812 was the murder of
Arthur Lott (who was later misidentified as William Lott). Lott departed from Montgomery County, Georgia, traveled via the Federal Road,
and was murdered at Warrior’s Stand in Macon County, Alabama.
Having served several terms in the Georgia General Assembly, his
influence in that state was pervasive to the point that the functions of
the county court and jail were moved to his plantation in 1797.36
This trio of murders roused great fear and resulted in much rage
among the white settlers. Although justice was exacted in all three
events, bringing Creek Indians into subjection became a controlling
obsession of white Americans. Yet looking at the context in which
these murders took place provides additional insight. In early 1812,
when all three incidents occurred, the United States was on the
threshold of war with Great Britain, and the Indians were believed to
be in alliance with the British. Since the Revolution, the tie between
the British and Indians had been strong. For their part, the Indians
resented the encroachment of westward-moving white settlers. And
while many Indians attempted to maintain neutrality, British agents
working with the Indians often agitated them toward war with the settlers. This alliance, along with the imminent British intrusion, added
to the hysteria of the times.37
One last factor to be considered is the influence of Tecumseh, the
Shawnee chief. In October 1811, six months before Meredith was
murdered, Tecumseh traveled to Tuckabatchee. Having been immensely influenced by the British in Detroit and working with Indians
in Canada and the Great Lakes region, Tecumseh, in tandem with
his brother Tenskwatawa, moved southward attempting to build a
pan-Indian Confederacy that would use military force to resist all expressions of white settlement and European influence. Inciting and
agitating young Indian warriors, Tecumseh challenged the Creeks to
throw off any vestige of military and cultural dominance of the white
man. The civilization plan of Hawkins and the construction of the
Federal Road epitomized that cultural dominance and white movement into Indian territories. By the time Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa
36
Woodward, Woodward’s Reminiscences of the Creek, 35.
H. S. Halbert and T. H. Ball, The Creek War of 1813 and 1814 (1895; repr., Tuscaloosa,
1995), 60, 64, 88.
37
JULY 2010
185
arrived in Alabama, they had built a loose alliance of Indian tribes.
Tenskwatawa, called the Prophet, brought tremendous spiritual fervor and fanaticism to the movement, and Tecumseh encouraged confrontation and militant assault on anyone and anything that proved a
hindrance to a return to pre-European culture.38
The mounting hostility on the part of the Indians must be viewed
in the larger, more compelling context of an imminent war with
the British. Henri, while depending on the work of Edmunds, stated, “Tecumseh accepted gifts of arms and supplies from the British
and was led to believe vague promises that, if he could form an antiAmerican confederacy of all the tribes, the British would synchronize
an assault with an Indian uprising to drive out the common foe.”39
Hawkins described a speech made by Tecumseh to five thousand
Creeks convened at Tuckabatchee in the fall of 1811 thus:
Tecumseh, in the square of Tuckabatchee, delivered
their talk. . . . Kill the old chiefs, friends to peace; kill
the cattle, the hogs, and fowls; do not work, destroy
the wheels and looms, throw away your ploughs, and
every thing used by the Americans. Sing ‘the song of
the Indians of the northern lakes, and dance their
dance.’ Shake your war clubs, shake yourselves; you
will frighten the Americans, their arms will drop from
their hands. . . . Has this proved? Go to the fields of
Talledega, and New-yau-cau, and see them whitened
with the bones of the Red Clubs.40
By the late spring of 1812, white travelers and settlers had a keen
awareness of the danger posed by Tecumseh’s leadership, and the
hostility his words and actions aroused along with information about
the three Creek murders, the anticipation of war with Britain, and
the threat of further alliance between the Indians and British were
the causes of great anxiety.
38
Ibid., 62–67.
Henri, Southern Indians and Benjamin Hawkins, 267.
40
Ibid., 265.
39
186
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
Given the unrelenting fear caused by all these factors, white leaders
such as Benjamin Hawkins moved quickly to administer justice following incidents of violence. In the immediate aftermath of Meredith’s
death, Hawkins charged friendly Creeks with the assignment of apprehending, punishing, or executing those responsible.
The United States government did not impose federal or state
justice systems on the Creeks but instead recognized Creek authority over their people. Federal officials hoped this would build trust
and create a continuance of autonomy for the Creek Nation. While
there may have been earlier agreements between the government
and the Creeks, the enabling authority for surrendering the administration of justice to the Creek Nation is found in the 1790 Treaty of
New York.41 That year, a contingent of Creek chiefs led by Alexander
McGillivray made their way to the nation’s capital. Among the chiefs
was Sam Moniac, whose signature is found on the treaty. Brokered
by Secretary of War Henry Knox, the treaty included Article 8, which
spelled out the terms for indigenous justice:
If any Creek Indian or Indians, or persons residing
among them, or who shall take refuge in their nation, shall commit a robbery or murder or other capital crime, on any of the citizens or inhabitants of the
United States, the Creek nation, or town, or tribe to
which such offender or offenders may belong, shall
be bound to deliver him or them up, to be punished
according to the laws of the United States.42
In his April 6, 1812, letter to the Secretary of War, Hawkins noted
that when he received word of the Meredith murder, the speaker of
the Creek Nation was in his company, along with members of the
speaker’s executive council. Hawkins wrote that he immediately instructed them to convene a meeting of their chiefs as soon as they re41
Kathryn Braund observes that there were earlier expressions of Creeks administering
justice within agreements brokered by the United States.
42
The Avalon Project, “Treaty with the Creeks, 1790,” Yale Law School Lillian Goldman
Law Library, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/cre1790.asp#art8 (accessed May 6,
2010).
JULY 2010
187
turned home, and he asked them to “cause justice to be done without
delay.” Then Hawkins added that Maumouth, the only one drunk in
the party of perpetrators, was well known to members of the executive council and their chiefs and was a prime suspect in the crime.
The demands for justice among white settlers intensified following
the murder of Lott and the atrocities related to the Manleys and Mrs.
Crawley. In both cases, Creeks were convened and authorized to administer justice.43
Although Hawkins was criticized for not acting swiftly and forcefully, he had sought the help of two dependable operatives, Billy
McIntosh of Coweta and Little Prince of Broken Arrow, and he dispatched his assistant, Christian Limbaugh, to speak with McIntosh
about the urgency of apprehending the murderers. Hawkins apparently chose wisely, for the persuasive powers of these men prevailed.
Little Prince sent a mixed-blood chief, George Lovett, with Limbaugh
and McIntosh to talk with Big Warrior of Tuckabatchee. Apparently
the chain of influence was crucial in organizing a response among
the Creek chiefs to the recent crimes.44
Correspondence between the chiefs and Hawkins indicated the resolve of the chiefs to deal with the murderers. On June 7, they wrote
a letter stating:
We the kings, Chiefs and Warriors have assembled
in our Council House and taken into consideration
the danger which threatens our land; we have unanimously agreed that satisfaction shall be given without delay for the murders committed in our land. We
have appointed three parties, one party started last
evening, the other two this morning, in pursuit of
the murderers of Thomas Meredith and Arthur Lott,
who were murdered on the post road. The parties
have received their special orders not to stop until
they have punished these murderers.45
43
American State Papers . . . Indian Affairs, 1:809.
Griffith, McIntosh and Weatherford, 82–83.
45
Merritt B. Pound, Benjamin Hawkins: Indian Agent (Athens, Ga., 1951), 215.
44
188
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
Col. Benjamin Hawkins, General
Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Image
courtesy of the Alabama Department of
Archives and History, Montgomery.
JULY 2010
189
Later, McIntosh traveled to Hopoithle Micco’s town, which was where
the “leader of the Banditti” who was responsible for Lott’s murder
had sought sanctuary. McIntosh invaded the town and shot and killed
the criminal.46
Meredith’s killer was also swiftly punished. Hawkins, in correspondence to William Eustis dated July 28, conveyed the news of imposed
justice: “Being on the road, I have just time to inform you, that the
Indian who murdered Meredith, at Kittome, was put to death on the
19th; making, in all, five executed on the demand for satisfaction.”47
Hawkins’s report brought some relief to the mounting tension.
On August 24, Hawkins wrote triumphantly to the Secretary of War
that others in the party who killed Meredith had been punished, noting that “the chiefs have had six murderers put to death for their
crimes on the post road and to the northwest and seven cropped and
whipped for thefts.” Five days later, the Indian agent wrote again,
reporting that a total of eight Indians had now been executed in connection with Meredith’s murder. On September 7, Hawkins notified
Governor David B. Mitchell of Georgia:
The proof I have of the satisfaction taken for the
murder of Meredith and Lott and the stabbing of
one of Meredith’s companions is such as is customary here. The Chiefs sent with armed parties to execute them, returned and reported to the Executive
Council when and where they executed them; and
this report is sent to me by the Big Warrior and Mr.
Cornells. I have received three formal reports of the
success of their efforts to fulfill their promises to me,
the last of the 29th ult. They have executed up to that
date eight, and have cropped and whipped seven.
Hillaubee Haujo and three other were for murders
at Duck river and Northwestwardly.48
46
Griffith, McIntosh and Weatherford, 83.
American State Papers . . . Indian Affairs, 1:812.
48
C. L. Grant, Letters, Journals, and Writings of Benjamin Hawkins: 1802–1816 (Savannah, Ga.,
1980), 2:617.
47
190
THE ALABAMA REVIEW
Thomas Meredith, “a respectable old man,” a veteran of the
Revolutionary War, a Baptist churchman, a South Carolina plantation owner, and a blacksmith by trade, died on the banks of Pinchona
Creek in 1812, nearly two hundred years ago. Beginning just a few
weeks after his death at the hands of a group of militant Creeks, conflicting accounts of the murder surfaced. Today, two troublesome issues related to his murder have been identified and, I hope, resolution to those two issues has been offered. Since 1812 confusion has
existed about the location of Meredith’s death, and it has not been
clear whether the killing was a murder or an accident. The question
of misidentification of location is the most easily answered. Hawkins,
unfamiliar with the area, simply made a mistake. The confusing
names of creeks and their variant spellings contributed to this understandable error.
The second issue is more complex. Understanding why Sam Moniac
would call Meredith’s death an accident when Meredith’s son, an eyewitness, claimed it was intentional is puzzling, but Moniac’s response
does provide insight into his personal struggles and also the tension
of the times. What would become central Alabama was embroiled in
a cultural clash between Creeks and white settlers, and fear of change
was a daily part of the lives of both.
Official records help in understanding the context, but those records do not capture or communicate the grief and pathos of the
Meredith family. Shocked by the sudden, violent death of their patriarch, the family faced starting a new life in a new place without
his guidance. Surely the burden of loss colored every dynamic of
their lives as they moved farther west and eventually homesteaded in
Amite County, Mississippi Territory. His death perhaps can be seen,
too, as a small harbinger of the great tragedies imposed on Native
Americans, upon whom forced relocation brought about sweeping
cultural changes.
In September 1812, the last will and testament of Thomas Meredith
was probated in South Carolina. Representatives of the Meredith family returned to witness this legal proceeding and to sell Meredith’s
South Carolina property. They had journeyed along the Federal Road
to South Carolina, knowing that hostilities were more intense, that
JULY 2010
191
war was closer to a reality, and that Sam Moniac’s “house of entertainment” now stood guard over the grave of Thomas Meredith. What
must it have been like for them to return the way in which they had
once before traveled? What must it have been like for them to pass
by the place where their father had been senselessly murdered? The
brief return of representatives of the Meredith family to their home
in South Carolina in order to probate the will of their patriarch may
have been done with the assurance that those accused of the murder
had been executed.
Within a year’s time of the probation of Meredith’s will, the Red
Sticks would lay waste to Moniac’s property; he would never recover
from the loss of 700 cattle, 200 hogs, 48 goats and sheep valued at
$5,060, a cotton gin, 2,000 pounds of cotton, 36 slaves, and several
houses.49
Giant oak trees still line Pinchona Creek, standing as silent sentinels guarding the unmarked grave of Thomas Meredith and bearing witness to the reality that everyone loses in such violent, cultural
wars.
49
Saunt, New Order of Things, 260.